^{page 68 note 1} Vide further evidence from the Vienna Archives quoted by me in English Historical Review, January 1933, pp. 92–3.

^{page 69 note 1} Historical Essays and Studies, p. 214, gives the date 7th June 1870, which is a mistake. Acton MSS. 5503 gives 7th July, which is obviously correct.

^{page 69 note 2} Acton MSS. 4928, 5519, 5387 in Cambridge University Library.

^{page 69 note 3} Blennerhasset wrote an article on this subject. National Review, Oct. 1902, vol. XL. p. 225, but gave no detailed evidence. Acton MSS. 5503 shows that in private he told Acton that Droysen knew of Bernhardi's offers of money.

^{page 70 note 1} V[ienna] S[taats] A[rchiv] France. Varia, 1869.

^{page 70 note 2} V.S.A. France. Berichte aus Frankreich 1870. Metternich to Beust, no. 37 E of 8th July.

^{page 70 note 3} V.S.A. Spanien, 1870. Dubsky to Beust 24th June. Bernhardi had visited Italy in 1866 on a mysterious quasi-political mission.

^{page 70 note 4} Pirala, Historia Contemporanea, III. 392. The authenticity of this mutilated and mysterious letter is generally accepted. Vide Lord, Origins of the War of 1870, N.Y. [1924], p. 24 n. G. B. Ives, Franco-Prussian War and its hidden causes [1913], pp. 430–1.

^{page 71 note 1} Historical Essays and Studies, pp. 214–5.

^{page 71 note 2} Lord, p. 20.

^{page 72 note 1} There are some very forcible remarks on this point by E. Wertheimer, Zur Vorgesckichte des Krieges von 1870, Deutsche Rundschau, Jan. 1921, p. 47.

^{page 72 note 2} Acton MSS. 5387.

^{page 72 note 3} Historical Essays and Studies, p. 219.

^{page 72 note 4} Gladstone, Gleanings, iv. 241; Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1870.

^{page 73 note 1} Historical Essays and Studies, pp. 224–5.

^{page 73 note 2} Acton MSS. 5501 on 14th July 1870, with more to same effect.

^{page 73 note 3} The original is in Public Record Office, F.O. Prussia 64/688. Loftus printed his own version in 1894 in Diplomatic Reminiscences, vol. II. 2nd ser. pp. 274–6, but not quite accurately.

^{page 74 note 1} R. H. Lord, p. 97 n., thinks the hour of this interview was about 4 p.m. The condensed telegraphic version was received in London at 6.30 p.m. Telegrams took about hours in transit and we must allow half an hour at least for composition and ciphering. This would make the interview about 2.30 p.m., unless the telegram was delivered with unusual rapidity.

^{page 74 note 2} Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to London.

^{page 74 note 3} Not Count Vitzthum von Eckstaedt—the Austro-Hungarian Minister to Brussels.

^{page 75 note 1} Quoted in Lord, pp. 265–6.

^{page 75 note 2} F.O. Prussia, 64/697 a. Telegram 13th July received 6.30 p.m.

^{page 75 note 3} L'Empire Liberal, XIV. 319, 373–4. Cp. Ives, p. 327 n.

^{page 76 note 1} Ives, pp. 322–3.

^{page 76 note 2} In his deposition before the Parliamentary Inquiry Gramont says he heard of the Loftus conversation three hours after it had taken place, i.e. about 5.30 on the 13th, Acton MSS. 4928. Elsewhere he says news of it arrived late on the 14th!

^{page 76 note 3} Diplomatic Reminiscences, 2nd ser. I. 294.

^{page 76 note 4} Cp. Lord, p. 266, who quotes Münch-Bellinghausen (Austro-Hungarian chargé d'affaires at Berlin) to Beust of 14th July privately: “Lord Augustus Loftus [who saw Bismarck yesterday before the circulation of the Ems telegram] fand denselben sehr entschieden in der Ansicht, dass jede weitere Forderung Frankreichs zum Kriege führen müsste.” If this is correct, Loftus himself misunderstood Bismarck's drift.

^{page 76 note 6} Historical Essays and Studies, p. 225. Acton gives more detailed arguments in Acton MSS. 5503, and suggests Vitzthum was instructed to negotiate a treaty.

^{page 77 note 1} Rheinpolitik Kaiser Napoleons III, Bd. III. 394–5.

^{page 77 note 2} V.S.A. Weisungen nach Frankreich 1870. Beust to Metternich. The “paroles au Conseil” probably refer to Gramont's declaration to the Chamber which was discussed first at the council.

^{page 77 note 3} V.S.A. Weisungen nach Frankreich The despatch alluded to is given in Oncken, Die Rheinpolitik Kaiser Napoleons III, Bd. III. 418–27, together with a “lettre particulière.”

^{page 78 note 1} Vide Oncken, loc cit. in. 440–4, citing Vitzthum's own account.

^{page 78 note 2} V.S.A. Weisungen nach Frankreich 1870.

^{page 79 note 1} Oncken, in. 440–4. In Acton MSS. 4928 Acton says: “V.'s memoirs are not published but their contents are known….According to his own statement (account) V. did nothing to promote war and went away July 15 wondering at the folly of the French.” Acton seems to doubt Vitzthum and to rely on Gramont. But Gramont is a broken reed. For in his reply of 8 Jan. 1873 to Beust's of 4 Jan. (V.S.A. 385/913) he admits “Que les promesses de concours… sont postérieures à la déclaration de guerre” (which was on the 19th July), and also that Vitzthum merely carried a message from Napoleon to Francis Joseph, which produced (20th July) an Austrian promise “nous considérons la cause de la France comme la nôtre, et que nous contribuerons au succès de ses armes dans les limites du possible.” This is plainly the source of Acton's assertion (p. 76) and it will be seen that Gramont himself places all pledges after the critical day of 14th July.

^{page 79 note 2} V.S.A. 385/913, Vitzthum to Gramont, 4 Jan. 1873, in dossier entitled Publications du Due de Gramont. Gramont was not to be relied on in other statements nor probably in this.

^{page 79 note 3} The source of Acton's information appears to be revealed in Acton MSS. 5503: “Lord Gr[anville] thinks Beust at first wished to fight. Then he backed out of it.” This assumption, for reasons given in the text, seems inaccurate.

^{page 80 note 1} V.S.A. Weisungen nach England 1870. This was enclosed, together with the draft of the Emperor's reply, in a despatch of Beust to Count Apponyi (Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in London) of 13th Oct. 1870. On the 29th Apponyi replied that the despatch only arrived on the 26th and that all the seals except of the Emperor's letter were broken.

^{page 81 note 1} Technically this is only the draft of the letter, the original being retained by the Empress Eugénie. But it seems to have been approved by the Emperor, for his almost illegible initials F.-J. endorse it. The date is not given but was about the 12th or 13th October. The accents, spelling, etc., of both imperial writers have been corrected, but doubtful instances of grammar have been left intact.